"A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
Posted by: OncyT
"A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/03/20 10:25 AM
The WDFW Fish Science staff has published one of the documents they have been preparing as part of the ongoing review of the Fish and Wildlife Commission's Hatchery and Fishery Reform Policy. Here are a few take away conclusions from the report:
Overarching themes:Hatchery reform is but one of several factors requiring careful planning and aggressive implementation needed to achieve meaningful recovery of salmon populations.
Hatchery reform is largely aimed at reducing risk in a relative but not absolute sense.
In WDFW’s hatchery system, a focus on efficiency and maximizing abundance prevents widespread implementation of risk reduction measures.
Conclusions Specific to HSRG RecommendationsThe principles of reducing pHOS and increasing pNOB to achieve fitness gains in wild populations are well-founded, and should be fundamental goals in any hatchery reform management action.
Program size requires more careful scrutiny and scientific justification because it affects virtually every aspect of hatchery risks.
The HSRG’s phased approach to recovery has strong conceptual merit, but its implementation has resulted in an absence of stricter, conservation oriented PNI goals for many populations.
We recommend crafting a stand-alone monitoring and adaptive management plan for each hatchery program that quantifies both benefits and risks, and explicitly links hatchery performance metrics to potential operational changes.
WDFW Fish Science review
Posted by: Carcassman
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/03/20 10:47 AM
Interesting. "a focus on efficiency and maximizing abundance prevents widespread implementation of risk reduction measures". When I was in Hatcheries, the main difference between State facilities and for profit was the recognition that we weren't trying to be "efficient", we were trying to produce the fish and stocks that were best suited to ecosystem.
If WDFW is now saying that efficiency is the goal, then let private business run the show as they will likely do it cheaper. And money must be the only important thing.
Posted by: OncyT
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/03/20 11:55 AM
Interesting. "a focus on efficiency and maximizing abundance prevents widespread implementation of risk reduction measures". When I was in Hatcheries, the main difference between State facilities and for profit was the recognition that we weren't trying to be "efficient", we were trying to produce the fish and stocks that were best suited to ecosystem.
If WDFW is now saying that efficiency is the goal, then let private business run the show as they will likely do it cheaper. And money must be the only important thing.
I haven't read the full report yet, so I'm just spit-balling this, but I suspect the issue of efficiency has to do with how inefficient it is to try to implement some of the broodstock management protocols, e.g. collecting natural broodstock or operating a weir to control the spawning of hathery origin returns. Those types of things are certainly less efficient in terms of time, money and personnel than simply operating hatcheries as we have in the past, and in many cases, still do. That would seem to fit in with the other thought that the desire to maximize abundance (I'm guessng in terms of the size of the hatchery program and therefore abundance of hatchery fish returning) prevents being able to implement risk reduction measures like more conservation minded broodstock protocols. Again, just a guess before I read the report.
Posted by: blenny
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/03/20 05:59 PM
There is some really good data in this document:
In 2006, non-treaty commercial salmon fisheries in Washington generated a gross
revenue of $7 M, which represents harvest and seafood revenue minus fishing and processing
costs (TCW Economics 2008). The 2006 economic impacts of non-treaty commercial salmon
fisheries was estimated at $21 M and 507 jobs, which includes the direct personal income and
secondary, indirect benefits to local economies of the persons employed in the fishing industry
spending their earnings (TCW Economics 2008). Wegge (2008) estimated the direct plus
indirect economic impacts of Washington’s 120 salmon and steelhead hatchery programs;
across the Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and Lower Columbia regions, the total contribution
of non-treaty commercial fisheries to personal income was approximately $14 M.
The 2006 total economic impact (again, direct and indirect personal income) of all
Washington State recreational fisheries, not just salmon and steelhead, was estimated at $393
M (TCW Economics 2008). Salmon and steelhead fisheries totaled 39% across all recreational
fisheries of a different metric, net economic value (described below under Social and cultural
section), so we suggest a coarse economic impact of $153 M for Washington’s recreational
salmon and steelhead fisheries. Furthermore, Wegge (2009) estimated the economic impact of Washington’s hatcheries to salmon and steelhead recreational fisheries in Puget Sound,
Washington Coast and Lower Columbia at $54 M.]
Posted by: darth baiter
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/03/20 11:31 PM
The surprising thing in OncyT's summary is the self criticism of WDFW operations from a WDFW report. It is difficult to put out a report from within an agency that says something other than glowing comments. CM: I dont think that ecosystem concerns were ever a main driver in WDFW hatcheries; at best perhaps acknowledgement of "ecosystems" but not enough to dramatically alter programs. "More is better" has been the primary motivator for hatcheries up until recently.
Posted by: Carcassman
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/04/20 07:06 AM
There was a big difference back then. WDF utilized "local" stocks. They did transfer stuff around but then used the returns to maintain the program. WDG used the mothership model which was much more economical.
For trout and various lakes (high and low) they maintained a variety of stocks rather than a single one-size fits all which is (again) cheaper.
My point was that, in the past at least, WDFW used local stocks which are less economical than a mothership operation which is why the agency, back then anyway, was certain that their operations were, overall, better for the State economically than just going cheap and buying the fish from private growers.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/04/20 10:36 AM
Interesting. "a focus on efficiency and maximizing abundance prevents widespread implementation of risk reduction measures". When I was in Hatcheries, the main difference between State facilities and for profit was the recognition that we weren't trying to be "efficient", we were trying to produce the fish and stocks that were best suited to ecosystem.
If WDFW is now saying that efficiency is the goal, then let private business run the show as they will likely do it cheaper. And money must be the only important thing.
LOL.
Don't wanna cut into the pension donation pot.
Gotta keep real.
And fail.
Efficiency!!!! Still laughing.
Posted by: OncyT
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/04/20 10:38 AM
There was a big difference back then. WDF utilized "local" stocks. They did transfer stuff around but then used the returns to maintain the program. WDG used the mothership model which was much more economical.
For trout and various lakes (high and low) they maintained a variety of stocks rather than a single one-size fits all which is (again) cheaper.
My point was that, in the past at least, WDFW used local stocks which are less economical than a mothership operation which is why the agency, back then anyway, was certain that their operations were, overall, better for the State economically than just going cheap and buying the fish from private growers.
WDF may have preferred using local stocks, but had no problem backfilling eggs from other sources when there weren't enough of the local stocks available to make program. When starting new programs, it was also common to simply transfer in eggs or fish from an existing hatchery program, even if it were in a different watershed, rather than collecting local broodstock.
Posted by: Rivrguy
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/04/20 11:47 AM
And money must be the only important thing.
Well yes in a manner of speaking. To WDFW the most important thing is BUDGET, period. The agency will do everything possible to maintain the current staffing and how they do business even if it short changes the tax payer, license buyers, and the resource. It is what it is.
Posted by: blenny
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/05/20 10:50 AM
Has anyone in hear actually read or skimmed the document? It took me about an hour to go through it. This is a really important document for policy making- it is extremely balanced and even handed when assessing the pros and cons of hatcheries. It actually outlines programs that work, programs that aren't working and knowledge gaps.The fact that the agency published this document is a huge step in the right direction and there are forum members in here more dedicated to circle jerking anti-WDFW posts. This document acknowledges the failures of the current hatchery programs and suggests modern approaches and largely supports 100% broodstocking programs for conservation and harvest minded hatcheries. It also acknowledges that over production of chum and pink salmon by Alaska, Japan and Russia may be impacting our hatchery production in Washington. Another thing not often considered by the pro-hatchery crowd is highlighted in the document as well: out competition of natives by hatchery releases in habitat limited environments. Releasing large chinook smolts can result in native fish being eaten or simply out-muscled by the larger fish.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/05/20 11:07 AM
That's great.
I approve.
Now turn the printed word into fish instead of the continued circle jerking..
Posted by: Rivrguy
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/05/20 11:40 AM
Ah, BL all of this was known ( minus the AK bit ) in the 90's. It is not that this was not known but rather the agency chose not to change. I seriously doubt that the agency will feel the need to upend the cart now. The Science Division does not rule the roost but rather Fish Program does and they are all about harvest.
Posted by: OncyT
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/05/20 07:56 PM
In case anyone wants to comment on this report or the review of the hatchery policy it is on the Fish and Wildlife Commission's agenda at their meeting tomorrow:
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2020
8:00 AM Hatchery Policy Review Emerging Science Report Workshop – Briefing, Public Comment
Location: Room 172
Staff will brief the Commission on the key findings of the recently completed science report titled, “A review of hatchery reform science in Washington State.”
Staff Report: Joe Anderson, Research Scientist and Ken Warheit, Supervisor of Genetic and Fish Health Laboratories
Public Comment – This Item Only
Posted by: Smalma
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/06/20 05:59 AM
What shapes much of the conversation around hatchery, recovery and many of our fisheries issues has been the dramatic decline in marine smolt to adult survivals; especially for Puget Sound stocks.
In the last 40 years the information I can dig up show that for steelhead, coho, and Chinook the fish returning to Puget Sound have seen an 80 to 90% decline in that smolt to adult survival. That survival decline appears to be occurring at significantly accelerated rates than that of the ocean as a whole.
Those declines not only limits the returns from given hatchery releases but also the success of wild escapements. In addition those poor returns negate or limits the benefits from freshwater restoration work.
As interesting aside to the whole decline of Puget Sound smolt to adult survivals has been that with at least the coho and steelhead that decline occurred first or happened faster in the South Sound but now is a PS wide program.
Curt
Posted by: Carcassman
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/06/20 07:23 AM
I remember when we first noticed the deep SS problem. It was with yearling smolts, primarily. What really struck me was when we saw Yearling Chinook from Minter doing worse that the same stock, but fingerlings, released in White River. Made it look like the problem was at or north of the Narrows.
At that time, I found it hard to say the problem was in-Sound (Itself) as the season cutts and native char were both doing well and increasing and they lived their whole life in that selfsame Sound.
I don't know if the cutts and char are still increasing but I do know that the cutts are supporting targeted/guided fisheries.
Posted by: _WW_
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/06/20 09:44 AM
something wrong with the link this morning. Takes me to Homeimprovement.com
Posted by: slabhunter
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/07/20 03:37 PM
HRS was meant to be a part of the solution. Hydro and Habitat have changed for the better. Harvest continues to be a problem.
The gill net folks say how they handle less b-run steel head with larger mesh. The thing missed is the ones captured and handled are the ones that could have been major contributors. Them of greater fecundity.
Posted by: RUNnGUN
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/07/20 04:57 PM
HRS was meant to be a part of the solution. Hydro and Habitat have changed for the better. Harvest continues to be a problem.
The gill net folks say how they handle less b-run steel head with larger mesh. The thing missed is the ones captured and handled are the ones that could have been major contributors. Them of greater fecundity.
In reality, what is the gill net impact on Columbia river Steelhead? Is it factually known? We can make all the assumptions we want, and I agree think they F up lots while handling. But does anyone really know other than those on board? Why not have observers on every boat? Make that a requirement for every licensed commercial fisher. I would volunteer to be an observer even if it meant the threat of walking the plank.
Posted by: Carcassman
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/07/20 05:52 PM
Way back with separate agencies, WDG rules mandated that all steelhead caught in nets be released.Period, Live, dead. And, there was no accounting. I know of one CR fishery where one guy retained, because they were dead, 400 pounds of steelhead (20 fish). They were donated. He also released any that were live. We (the State) made a conscious decision to not know what was going on.
Posted by: Numbqua
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/08/20 08:03 AM
HRS was meant to be a part of the solution. Hydro and Habitat have changed for the better. Harvest continues to be a problem.
The gill net folks say how they handle less b-run steel head with larger mesh. The thing missed is the ones captured and handled are the ones that could have been major contributors. Them of greater fecundity.
You really make yourself look extremely unintelligent and pretty much clueless when you say things like “Hydro and Habitat have changed for the better”. You clearly have no idea what’s going on.
Posted by: darth baiter
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/08/20 11:36 AM
Whoa there Numb, pretty harsh words without having a timeframe or location context for slabs generalization. For example, spill and flow ramping regimes have improved in Columbia River hydro system. Some areas have had habitat restoration projects (eg Nisqually estuary). We all reveal some level of our intelligence in our comments. One must be careful.
Posted by: fishbadger
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/08/20 12:07 PM
+1 on that baiter,
fb
Posted by: Numbqua
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/08/20 01:23 PM
Whoa there Numb, pretty harsh words without having a timeframe or location context for slabs generalization. For example, spill and flow ramping regimes have improved in Columbia River hydro system. Some areas have had habitat restoration projects (eg Nisqually estuary). We all reveal some level of our intelligence in our comments. One must be careful.
You’re missing the most obvious problem in this picture. Ocean productivity in general has tanked. The productivity of the Pacific Ocean is by far and without a doubt the most significant factor or variable when looking at the relationship of smolts recruiting into the adult/spawning population. This is what we have unfortunately been witnessing and probably will continue to in the future.
If ocean conditions continue to be unproductive for salmonids, then other attempts will not be successful in trying to rebuild our stocks.
There are all these complete Neanderthals on this forum that stress planting more fish to curb these recent dismal returns. Planting more will not fix the problem, it will just waste more energy and taxpayers money.
There is no guarantee that by “restoring” habitat (if even possible) equals a significant increase in escapement/harvest. It can take decades to restore habitat. The clock is ticking.....we don’t have decades in case you haven’t noticed.
By the way, how are the populations of salmonids doing on the Columbia/Snake? There have been lots of closed fisheries in the past two seasons.. Those increases in “spill” are important and very necessary but...if we we are to witness significant improvements the dams on the Columbia and Snake need to be removed. Anything less is a band aid solution.
Posted by: Larry B
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/10/20 01:11 PM
Whoa there Numb, pretty harsh words without having a timeframe or location context for slabs generalization. For example, spill and flow ramping regimes have improved in Columbia River hydro system. Some areas have had habitat restoration projects (eg Nisqually estuary). We all reveal some level of our intelligence in our comments. One must be careful.
You’re missing the most obvious problem in this picture. Ocean productivity in general has tanked. The productivity of the Pacific Ocean is by far and without a doubt the most significant factor or variable when looking at the relationship of smolts recruiting into the adult/spawning population. This is what we have unfortunately been witnessing and probably will continue to in the future.
If ocean conditions continue to be unproductive for salmonids, then other attempts will not be successful in trying to rebuild our stocks.
There are all these complete Neanderthals on this forum that stress planting more fish to curb these recent dismal returns. Planting more will not fix the problem, it will just waste more energy and taxpayers money.There is no guarantee that by “restoring” habitat (if even possible) equals a significant increase in escapement/harvest. It can take decades to restore habitat. The clock is ticking.....we don’t have decades in case you haven’t noticed.
By the way, how are the populations of salmonids doing on the Columbia/Snake? There have been lots of closed fisheries in the past two seasons.. Those increases in “spill” are important and very necessary but...if we we are to witness significant improvements the dams on the Columbia and Snake need to be removed. Anything less is a band aid solution.
So in just over four years it seems you've made 13 posts with the last several espousing how other posters are missing your point or are complete Neanderthals. That may be a record (dubious one, but a record none the less).
Just a test question but if the Neanderthals' idea of planting more fish is illogical given constraints of the ocean conditions how will removing the Snake River dams improve returns? That is, unless I missed your initial point......
A serious constraint to Puget Sound origin salmon smolt is predation and particularly by seals and cormorants. According to the Chasko report seals alone are taking roughly 22% of all (wild and hatchery) Puget Sound origin Chinook smolts and when adjusted to adult equivalents seals take twice what Orcas consume and six times all human fisheries.
Being one of your Neanderthals I support additional production with the same optimism of farmers planting their fields; that conditions will be good and the fields will produce.
Posted by: 5 * General Evo
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/10/20 02:05 PM
im sure someone has thought of this before, but ill say it anyways...
our oceans are giant fish tanks, fish need to eat...
anyone ever thought about farming food? like krill, candlefish, etc, the food that salmon and steelhead eat?
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/10/20 02:34 PM
Someone is saddling up to ride into town and shoot that one down.
Posted by: Todd
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/10/20 02:40 PM
im sure someone has thought of this before, but ill say it anyways...
our oceans are giant fish tanks, fish need to eat...
anyone ever thought about farming food? like krill, candlefish, etc, the food that salmon and steelhead eat?
An easier way to accomplish this is to stop harvesting herring, krill, etc...there would be an immediate increase in food base.
Fish on...
Todd
Posted by: stonefish
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/10/20 04:03 PM
im sure someone has thought of this before, but ill say it anyways...
our oceans are giant fish tanks, fish need to eat...
anyone ever thought about farming food? like krill, candlefish, etc, the food that salmon and steelhead eat?
Not a hatchery, but an idea that might help increase herring populations.
SF
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...atsen-1.3447913
Posted by: SpoonFed
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/10/20 04:06 PM
im sure someone has thought of this before, but ill say it anyways...
our oceans are giant fish tanks, fish need to eat...
anyone ever thought about farming food? like krill, candlefish, etc, the food that salmon and steelhead eat?
An easier way to accomplish this is to stop harvesting herring, krill, etc...there would be an immediate increase in food base.
Fish on...
Todd
Both of these seem like good ideas, couldn't hurt.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/10/20 05:13 PM
Feed it and it will come.
Posted by: Larry B
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/10/20 05:26 PM
im sure someone has thought of this before, but ill say it anyways...
our oceans are giant fish tanks, fish need to eat...
anyone ever thought about farming food? like krill, candlefish, etc, the food that salmon and steelhead eat?
Not a hatchery, but an idea that might help increase herring populations.
SF
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...atsen-1.3447913 Several Puget Sound Angler chapters are pursuing this idea. Apparently the location in Vancouver had been a successful herring spawning site prior to construction of the marina. The netting essentially replaced the natural spawning habitat.
When contacted the WDFW forage fish specialist opined that Puget Sound has a lot of suitable habitat which is not being utilized. Bottom line, in the case of herring the "build it and they will come" mantra is not necessarily true.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 08:29 AM
I really think that harvesting all the herring and putting them in a small can with oil will help.
Krill?
Dry em out and drop em in the fish tank at the local Olive Garden.
Posted by: Larry B
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 08:51 AM
I really think that harvesting all the herring and putting them in a small can with oil will help.
Krill?
Dry em out and drop em in the fish tank at the local Olive Garden.
So many variations and so little time.....pickled, kippered and a variety of sauces (tomato, mustard, lemon and cracked pepper, creme to name a few).
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 08:57 AM
Perhaps we could just can steelhead smolt.
I prefer wild.
Posted by: SpoonFed
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 09:18 AM
Posted by: Carcassman
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 09:27 AM
I was just re-reading Royal's report on WA's anadromous trout program. From the early 70s. Back then, WDG was planing "a lot" of steelhead smolts. They found that significant increases did not really bump up catches of hatchery fish. They knew there were limits back then.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 11:27 AM
Yup.
We usually caught limits back then.
AND
There was zero junk mail.
Posted by: RUNnGUN
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 12:11 PM
Whoa there Numb, pretty harsh words without having a timeframe or location context for slabs generalization. For example, spill and flow ramping regimes have improved in Columbia River hydro system. Some areas have had habitat restoration projects (eg Nisqually estuary). We all reveal some level of our intelligence in our comments. One must be careful.
You’re missing the most obvious problem in this picture. Ocean productivity in general has tanked. The productivity of the Pacific Ocean is by far and without a doubt the most significant factor or variable when looking at the relationship of smolts recruiting into the adult/spawning population. This is what we have unfortunately been witnessing and probably will continue to in the future.
If ocean conditions continue to be unproductive for salmonids, then other attempts will not be successful in trying to rebuild our stocks.
There are all these complete Neanderthals on this forum that stress planting more fish to curb these recent dismal returns. Planting more will not fix the problem, it will just waste more energy and taxpayers money.
There is no guarantee that by “restoring” habitat (if even possible) equals a significant increase in escapement/harvest. It can take decades to restore habitat. The clock is ticking.....we don’t have decades in case you haven’t noticed.
By the way, how are the populations of salmonids doing on the Columbia/Snake? There have been lots of closed fisheries in the past two seasons.. Those increases in “spill” are important and very necessary but...if we we are to witness significant improvements the dams on the Columbia and Snake need to be removed. Anything less is a band aid solution.
For So. Puget Sound Steelhead, numbers can't even make out past the Straits! This is evidenced by acoustic transmitters planted in them. Something is getting them inside before they even get out to the ocean.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 01:08 PM
Probably Gov. Inslee's direct flush septic system at the Mansion.
Posted by: fishbadger
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 01:48 PM
For So. Puget Sound Steelhead, numbers can't even make out past the Straits! This is evidenced by acoustic transmitters planted in them. Something is getting them inside before they even get out to the ocean.
Something = seals. And cormies,
fb
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 02:01 PM
= Libatards
Shoot them sea creatures.
Posted by: Larry B
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State" - 02/11/20 02:23 PM
